Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pepper-spray is considered a use of force. That is why this incident is in the news.

A use of force to to lessen the capabilities of an individual to resist arrest? Why would the officers struggle to break the lock arms of the sitters. The more time they spend in that situation the possibility of something else happening to compound the situation emerge. We have two groups. The protesters who were sitting and the bystanders who were watching. The bystanders who are watching are the unknown factor. All it takes is just one "hero" to say...throw something and then we ratchet it up a couple notches.

When have anyone ever seen the police outnumber protesters...unless its a police union protesting. Seriously.

Edit
Okay just saw a an additional clip on Fox news. Pepper spray came out after the police were surrounded by bystanders. From the clip...they were surrounded. I watch another clip where a officer went to each protesters to inform what was going to happen if they countinue the sit in. So they had sufficent warning. It is against the law in california to block a public sidewalk

Radiation wrote:

Shame on You!
Shame on You!
Shame on You!

If you have a few minutes you should watch it to the end. This is how the smart kids are doing it. Good curse. It totally worked and unnerved the officers. The cell phones are interesting too. Cool footage of the "hipster" middleclass set in action.

Edit: http://m.cnn.com/primary/_2A6zSi-iUYuYdyZ0s

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/19/us-protests-davis-pepperspray-idUSTRE7AI0ZA20111119

I'm just saddened tazers weren't employed. Taze them Bro!

See this is trash, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Frazzled went to undergrad in Cali, we had weekly marches and protests. They were completely nonviolent and no one threatened sit ins or other nonsense. So taze 'em bro!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I was disappointed in the limited application of pepper spray. They needed to use much more.

Says the man who claims that the OWS protesters are "anti-freedom".

You can take our Starbucks, but you'll never take our...F_R_E_E_D_O_M!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
They're just doing what they're told, I would have done the same in that position. Indeed their restraint is admirable, as has been said.

Now they will be fired, because management are California wussies. Protest all you want, but don't block the legitimate activities of the school-you know people actually there to learn something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

It is against the law to impede traffic. Its not in the constitution but its in state law and ordinance's. SO they broke the law. I have notice law enforcement give sufficient time notice before the execution.

People are so upset that they are taking to the streets to protest their situation, and you are worried about impeding foot traffic? People are trying to change the system they live under, there is going to be some inconvenience involved. It's called civil disobedience for a reason, and I'm pretty sure the United States of America has a long and noble history of it.

Its at college. People are paying to be there, and the protesters are mucking it up.
Again, you can protest without mucking it up for everyone else.

UI think a better option would be just to get their names and hand them "Thanks-you're expelled!" notices. plenty of other entrants who want to get into UC schools.
You'd never see this at Riverside (thats too much effort).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Space Crusader wrote:I love the fact that America goes around acting like the world police demanding other countries to stop abusing protesters but then do jack gak to stop their own citisens getting abused by fat pigs.

They weren't fat.

Just some muffin tops...

edit
Easy to take the protesters side. Ever step outside the box and think how the police view it going into the situation?

Jihadin wrote:Just some muffin tops...

edit
Easy to take the protesters side. Ever step outside the box and think how the police view it going into the situation?

I know how I would.
Lets see, where are we. Does the local jurisidiction have a nice tradition of leaving officers hanging out to dry (California/Austin), middle of road, or downright Franco ish (Mississippii). My actions would follow that.

If I am an officer in Oakland I'm never getting out of my car, except to write tickets or get coffee.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I watched some of it. It's too loud for me to really focus on

Unrelated, but I wonder if police could use airsoft guns as crowd control? Just spray a crowd with .12s and pray no one gets an eye shot out, and everything should be alright Just thinking out loud, lol

There is a non lethal airsoft gun that some police departments use. Its basically a super machine gun, and can spray a gak load of pellets at people. So itll hurt like a whole nest of hornets stinging you about 300 times a second, but wont kill you.

I would rather go in as a military unit then local law enforcement team. I can only imagine what remarks would be made on the "Who do you serve! Who do you protect!" from the one guy. Then the "Shame on you" chant would draw some chuckles.

Edit
Course the military has some cool crowd control equipment to use to.

So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto?

Some people seem willing to fight abroad for other people's freedom, but turn a blind eye at home when these freedoms are infringed upon? I'm scratching at my receding hairline here.

Maybe the John Adams example is not the right one, but the point is, sometimes you have to break the law to highlight injustice. It;s just as well your ancestors understood that, otherwise you guys would be driving on the left.

PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers?

No

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto?

There's not a constitutional rights issue in this case. There is in the TN case that Ouze linked(how big of one is a question. The main problem seems to stem from the fact that the TN city council in question is doing a really controversial move in that they're "finally" putting down the unwritten law of requiring $1 million in liability insurance for establishing a semi-permanent residency during a protest on public property[which is the correct way to do it] but they're doing so while also denying a group which applied for a permit before it was written down[which is sketchy, to say the least. It might genuinely be an attempt to fix an oversight or it might very well be an attempt to make it all "on the up and up"]) , but not here.

The First Amendment(freedom of assembly and speech, in particular here) does not apply to the method in which one stays present at the area you are protesting. It most certainly does not cover sleeping bags and tents in public assembly areas, without proper permits to do so.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked.

As with most things, they are more complicated than your talking points. We're not arguing that it's ok to have your rights attacked, we're arguing that they did not in fact have their rights attacked in the first place.

I know the difference is subtle, but trust me, none of us are saying it's ok to violate rights. We're arguing about what those rights actually cover.

So, let me get this straight. People like Frazz and Jihadin don't like their constitutional rights being attacked, but they don't mind when other people have their constitutional rights attacked. Don't tread on me, but do tread on them. Is that the Texas motto?
***It would be if you had gotten that straight. But you didn’t, so the rest of your statement sucks wiener dog breath.
As I noted if they want to have a march, cool. As I noted at my undergrad they literally had marches on a weekly basis. If the makeup of the crowd included the appropriate portion of the fairer sex I might even join in. Blocking raffic, sitins, camp outs however are violating the rights of other college students so give a taste of the lash.

Some people seem willing to fight abroad for other people's freedom,
***Not me. I don’t give a flip about people’s freedom. I’m only interested in protecting US citizens (ok CD, UK, and Australia too). Leave us alone and I believe in leaving you alone.

but turn a blind eye at home when these freedoms are infringed upon? I'm scratching at my receding hairline here.
***Again that’s such a fabulous miss its like North Korea firing a missile. No rights have been infringed on (other than by the sit in hosers).

Maybe the John Adams example is not the right one, but the point is, sometimes you have to break the law to highlight injustice.
***1. There was no injustice involved. 2. Its private property. 3. You’re violating other people’s rights.

PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers?
****That’s why he can kiss my tuckus. They were your soldiers.

No need for such vibrant imagery, Frazzled. Thanks! ~Manchu

Can I repost why I would do what I would have to do on this thread if deployed against protesters...please...pretty please...

Actually I have no issue if they protest within the law. Keyword there...LAW

I would do what I need to do to keep everyone in line. Once it gets out of hand then gloves off. If I can fall under two sets of law and not get into trouble then why not the protesters? Reason why we would chuckle at the students is a majority of them have an idea what the world is like. They have not experience it all. Hence the reason we would chuckle. You have the right to protest but keep it within boundaries. If your protest gets out of hand then your whatever your message was is lost. People are going to focus on the negative action more so then a positive action.

I help defend the rights of the individuals in the USA. I will not violate those rights unless instigated to do so. My soldiers safety is more important then a protester but my NCO's and I will restrain the soldiers not to go over board in making a protester zero threat. I cannot stand disorganization, lack of leadership, and lack of common freaking sense. Do the protest, keep it within the boundaries, do not endanger anyone and I will share coffee with the protester's.

sidenote: Obama just signed the Hire the Veteran's bill....OUTFREAKINGSTANDING.

back on track.

Are we not a land of laws?

edit
Experience as in outside the college/university range of life. Experience cannot be learned from a book. It'll prepare you but it will not make you ready.

I'm not from Texas either

Rented Tritium wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
PS wasn't it Sam Adams that defended the soldiers?

No

John Adams, Rex v Wemms, 1770.

I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!

So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?

Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?

Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!

So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?

Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?

Restrictions of the time, place and manner of speech are legal and have been REPEATEDLY upheld by the supreme court. If you want to have THAT argument, we can. But it has to replace the argument about an individual cop using pepper spray. They're too far apart to have at the same time.

Jihadin wrote:Are we not a land of laws?

Yes. Who gets to make the laws, and if the process is still fair and just; is the issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!

So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?

Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?

Restrictions of the time, place and manner of speech are legal and have been REPEATEDLY upheld by the supreme court. If you want to have THAT argument, we can. But it has to replace the argument about an individual cop using pepper spray. They're too far apart to have at the same time.

I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.

Easy E wrote:I should really stay away from threads like this.... but they're like catnip to me!

So, public places aren't okay to protest in without a permit, and private places it is trespassing? Out of curiosity, where do you go to protest if you are denied a permit and and owners of the private property don't agree with your agenda?

Let's say you sue for your "public" permit, how many years does it take for such a lawsuit to move through the court system? Do they give you the permit if you win?

Well if its private property kindly feth off.
Public property with a permit in some ares (the middle of a freeway is not one of those). A permit cannot be denied based on discrimination. There's joyous amounts of case law on this.

or you can suffer the consequences, but whining like a baby because you did is so...hippyish.

Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.

Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.

Here's the fun part. Those attacking the police what would you do?

Would this be bad?
* Spraying them with garden hoses until they left.
* Setting up speakers that played country music at them.
* Setting up speakers playing Nixon's greatest speeches.
* Air bombing them with feathers
* Pulling up a couple of double dooley diesel pick up trucks and revving them upwind.
* Giving the demonstrators draft notices.
* Tying coconuts to each of them and then releasing the T Rex?

Like somebody said on another thread..."payday"...and welcome to a new tax bracket

Edit
A coconut and T Rex?

Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.

Jihadin wrote:Like somebody said on another thread..."payday"...and welcome to a new tax bracket

Edit
A coconut and T Rex?

It's a known fact that dinosaurs were crazy about eating coconuts.

A peaceful demonstration or assembly can be a productive way to express what we feel is wrong in our government. While such a protest is considered a part of our first amendment rights, most cities do require a permit in an effort to help avoid traffic and crowd problems. Use these steps to learn the basic procedures for getting a permit to protest in your city.

1 Gather the appropriate information for getting the permit to protest. You will need an estimate of how many people are going to show up. You need to know the area you will be in or the route you are walking. You will need a time frame, though most jurisdictions have this already established.

2 Call your city offices with the details of your protest including the date and start time. You will have to fill out an application ahead of time and pay a fee.

3 Inform those involved in the protest of the city ordinances and laws surrounding a demonstration. Most cities do not allow you to block traffic, doorways and other areas that interrupt business or the general flow of the public moving around your city.

4 Carry a copy of your permit on you the day of the protest. Call the city the day before to ask about any last minute changes or requirements to make sure you are in full compliance.



Gist of it. Simple isn't it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Like somebody said on another thread..."payday"...and welcome to a new tax bracket

Edit
A coconut and T Rex?

It's a known fact that dinosaurs were crazy about eating coconuts.

Indeed. why do you think TRex's has those train spike like teeth. Perfect for coconuts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.

Not too much. It depends on if the location is traditionally a place for such. You can't attempt to get a permit for offices, etc.

Easy E wrote:Also, do the authorities have any say over what the permit... permits as far as location, number of people, etc. I'm guessing they do or the "tents" thing wouldn't be a huge issue. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper process for protest.

They can restrict all of those things as long as the rules are written and clear. They have to be applied evenly and they cannot be content-related. They're allowed to have a set of requirements and anyone who meets them automatically gets a permit. They're also allowed to use it to schedule a place. If there's a space that can hold 10k people, it's first come first serve for the permits.

Also, those requirements have to be reasonable, but that's more subjective and the court has treated it like obscenity where they'll know it when they see it.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
I ask because I want to know the answer. It's not an argument. I'm pretty confident some of you guys are lawyers or in the law field.

Ok, well basically if it turns out they were unfairly denying you the permit, you are probably going to settle for a bunch of money with the municipality years later.

Thanks for the info. So, as I read through it, here is my thought process. I'm sur eit is full of holes, so feel free to enlighten me.

So, you settle with the muncipality years later.... what good did that do?

The protest never happened, and never will. The easiest thing in the world the authorities can do is to deny you a permit. Then, you've got three options:

1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.

2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.

3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.

Dang, sounds like the deck is stacked for the authorities no matter what you do to resist.

I think anyone saying "they shoulda used more force" should have their head examined...

These are human beings...

frgsinwntr wrote:I think anyone saying "they shoulda used more force" should have their head examined...

These are human beings...

You say they are. I have no proof of that.
Further, none of those protesters were easy on the eyes. Therefore, they had to pay.

Easy E wrote:
1. Protest anyway, thereby allowing the authorities to paint your protest as some sort of criminal band. Partial win for the authorities.

2. Sue, in which case you may make some money several years later, if you don't lose the case. Meanwhile, no protest occurs, which is what the authorities want.

3. Do nothing, in which case the Authorities win again as no protest occurs.

Those are basically correct. There's one part you are missing though. In 2 they usually get forced to change whatever policy they used against you unfairly.

Until we invent judicial time machines, this is how the rule of law works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:I think anyone saying "they shoulda used more force" should have their head examined...

These are human beings...

Please keep this civil. Saying someone you disagree with has mental problems is almost definitely against the rules.